Let your imagination go

This thread is very much about being creative in a sense. We know Apollo was a cover for the American and Russian weaponization of space 1960s style,
and as such, we are trying to get a feel for the details of what kinds of things they might have been doing, what programs were being developed to
help the US and Soviet armed services with their surveillance, reconn, ICBM targeting/tracking/performance, dyna-sor development, MOL development.

Another idea I had today in addition to the one so far introduced; they may well have been "ranging ICBMs and SLBMs".

An intercontinental ballistic missile is a satellite that does not make it all the way around, but would benefit just as much as these birds from
ranging. Look at the details of the PDF report there. You could range a missile in real time. By way of its successful targeting, you would know
position, and if multiple hits were made, if it were tracked, you'd have its REFSMATT. Also, from that one PDF above;

Only once in the context of the Fish Bowl launches

It often comes as a surprise, certainly did to me, that in the history of U.S. strategic weapons development, it has only been on ONE OCCASION, the
occasion of the U.S. "Fish Bowl" exercises in 1962, that a SLBM has been launched from a sub, travelled through the unimaginable cold of space and
then with its warhead running the several thousand degree gauntlet of atmospheric reentry, passed back into the terrestrial realm to be exploded "on
target" ?

How is it that they were and are so confident this stuff works, never tested, not all up, but once, yes ONCE ! ?

Answer; the US manned space programs have served in this capacity, to provide the requisite cover for testing. You wouldn't build this stuff without
testing it now would ya' ?

As Apollo researchers, this stark fact should be in the forefront of our minds. Given the 1963 Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty's forbidding
atmospheric warhead testing, and given the 1967 outer space treaty's forbidding the weaponization of space, and given the strategic needs of our
military, to be absolutely certain our ICBMs/SLBMs flew straight and true and then BLEW in Khrushchev's bathtub or Andropov's or now Putin's, how is
it the reliability of our strategic arsenal was and is not left to chance, to question ? And with respect to a matter of such grave importance,
nothing of course could and can be left to chance. The equipment simply must have been tested.

This thread has as one of its very ambitious goals nothing less than elucidating how it was US Manned Space(Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Skylab/Shuttle)
figured out a way to "test" our strategic equipment and verify/demonstrate its reliability.

Weapons testing ? Interesting thought anyhoo…..

From Donald Beattie's, TAKING SCIENCE TO THE MOON;

One experiment, the passive seismometer left behind at the Apollo 12 landing site, did achieve important results from Apollo 13. Despite the
problems the crew encountered during the rest of the mission, the Apollo 13 SIVB stage, the first programmed to strike the Moon, accomplished its job
by landing some eighty-five miles from the Apollo 12 ALSEP. The seismometer received strong signals, and the impact had so much energy-estimated to be
the equivalent of twelve tons of TNT (larger than the LM ascent stage impact because of its greater mass and higher velocity at impact)-that it sent
seismic waves deep into the lunar crust. This elated Gary Latham, the passive seismometer PI, because he and his coinvestigators could now make some
preliminary estimates about the Moon's deep structure.

More seismometer stuff, important possibility for my side to pursue

Furthermore, shallow moonquakes lasted a remarkably long time. Once they got going, all continued more than 10 minutes. "The moon was ringing like
a bell," Neal says.

On Earth, vibrations from quakes usually die away in only half a minute. The reason has to do with chemical weathering, Neal explains: "Water weakens
stone, expanding the structure of different minerals. When energy propagates across such a compressible structure, it acts like a foam sponge—it
deadens the vibrations." Even the biggest earthquakes stop shaking in less than 2 minutes.

The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a
moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a
moonquake's magnitude.

Keep in mind that none of this stuff is real. By that I mean the lunar landing aspect, that feature is not real. But what about the seismometers ?
Those may be real... Did they park a set of "seismometers" up there to measure some rather robust unnatural activity ? Were the seismometers flashy
cover for something else altogether ? Could they have been testing nukes on the moon ?

Recall the 1963 partial test ban treaty. What better place to go to be sure your nukes ain't dudes ?

My side should be looking into this possibility with some enthusiasm. There may well be merit to it. It is not so out there.

Recall, the only time any of our ICBMs have ever been tested was with Frigate Bird in 1962, and that was a SLBM 1200 mile launch.

They had to test these intercontinental birds and warheads someway. How did they do it ? Apollo........, "Seismometers", whatever they "really"
were, may well have played a role in our weapons testing.

This thread is not a thread with a central and specific fundamental claim as you seem to want it have mrwiffler, or you seem to presume I am
suggesting should be the case

This thread's origin is a point of fact, that fact being that Apollo's fraudulence has been incontrovertibly demonstrated by way of the program's
bogus medical illnesses. We know with unmitigated metaphysical certitude that Apollo was/is fraudulent based on;

1) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Ken Mattingly was never genuinely at risk to acquire German measles just before the flight
of Apollo 13 as alleged by Apollo/NASA medical principals

2) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Alan Shepard's Meniere's Disease was never cured by way of a William House 1968/1969 shunt
surgery

3) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Deke Slayton's alleged paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was not cured by way of vitamin
therapy nor was it cured by way of no therapy whatsoever

4) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Frank Borman was never really ill in cislunar space with viral gastroenteritis during the
course of Apollo 8's alleged trans lunar coast

AS ONE KNOWS ALL OF APOLLO TO BE PROVEN FRAUDULENT BASED ON THESE FACTS, AND BY FRAUDULENT HERE ONE MEANS APOLLO WAS NOT A PROGRAM WHICH SOUGHT TO AND
SUCCEEDED IN LANDING MEN UPON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON, THEN ONE MAY CONCLUDE WITH UTTER CONFIDENCE THAT APOLLO WAS AN OVERT COVER FOR AMERICAN SPACE
BASED MILITARY ACTIVITIES, ACTIVITIES PROSCRIBED BY WAY OF NATIONAL LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW/TREATY, AND/OR PUBLIC/CONGRESSIONAL OPINION.

This thread begins from this point. This is our given. I do not claim to know the nature of the nefarious military activities for which Apollo
covered. I know only that the activities in some general sense sought to and succeeded in weaponizing/militarizing space. The Russians had a similar
program and succeeded roughly to an equivalent degree in this regard. Both countries sought to and succeeded by way of their space programs to
develop then state of the art space based surveillance/reconnaissance/terrestrial locating and tracking systems, ever improving systems which aided in
ICBM/SLBM tracking/targeting/performance and ever improving space shuttle and manned orbital lab type capacities. These programs were developed in
part under the guise of Apollo.

This thread seeks to discover what exactly these military "hardwares and softwares" were about. What hardware was launched under the guise of
Apollo ? How was said hardware "instructed" ? What was its program ? This we would like to know, and as such, this is what we workshop here in
this thread. No possibility is too crazy, too out there. We give every poster's idea a fair hearing. Indeed, speculation, both conservative and
wildly wild is welcome. Over time, right here in this thread, we shall come to know these realities in some not insignificant detail.

So give it a shot mrwiffler, speculate. Do you think they may have NUKED THE MOON ????? If yes, say why, if no, please favor us with your rationale
for the negative answer.

This thread's origin is a point of fact, that fact being that Apollo's fraudulence has been incontrovertibly demonstrated by way of the program's
bogus medical illnesses. We know with unmitigated metaphysical certitude that Apollo was/is fraudulent based on;

No, you mean your "subjective opinion without any hard proof". Get it right. That's all your threads have been, and why they are located here in
Skunk Works.

1) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Ken Mattingly was never genuinely at risk to acquire German measles just before the flight
of Apollo 13 as alleged by Apollo/NASA medical principals

2) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Alan Shepard's Meniere's Disease was never cured by way of a William House 1968/1969 shunt
surgery

3) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Deke Slayton's alleged paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was not cured by way of vitamin
therapy nor was it cured by way of no therapy whatsoever

4) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Frank Borman was never really ill in cislunar space with viral gastroenteritis during the
course of Apollo 8's alleged trans lunar coast

You'll have to excuse the rest of us that doubt your medical opinion of these things, since your credibility in this area is nil based upon the fact
that you've claimed to be a medical doctor of over 30 years, but have yet to prove this, and in fact have been caught posting fraudulent information
in this area in previous posts.

AS ONE KNOWS ALL OF APOLLO TO BE PROVEN FRAUDULENT BASED ON THESE FACTS, AND BY FRAUDULENT HERE ONE MEANS APOLLO WAS NOT A PROGRAM WHICH SOUGHT TO AND
SUCCEEDED IN LANDING MEN UPON THE SURFACE OF THE MOON, THEN ONE MAY CONCLUDE WITH UTTER CONFIDENCE THAT APOLLO WAS AN OVERT COVER FOR AMERICAN SPACE
BASED MILITARY ACTIVITIES, ACTIVITIES PROSCRIBED BY WAY OF NATIONAL LAW, INTERNATIONAL LAW/TREATY, AND/OR PUBLIC/CONGRESSIONAL OPINION.

Again with the all caps. It neither proves your point, gets your point across, nor communicates with people online very well. It also goes against
forum policies. Please learn to post correctly.

And no, I'm afraid you still have not proven anything. At all. What you have shown is that you do not really know nor understand the field of
medicine.
All you have done here is speculate and put forth an opinion that the entire Apollo program was a hoax, based upon your faulty understanding of
medicine.

What you have done is looked at a mole on the skin of someone and declared that they have skin cancer. Meaning your diagnosis is highly doubtful and
incredibly obtuse.

This thread begins from this point. This is our given. I do not claim to know the nature of the nefarious military activities for which Apollo
covered. I know only that the activities in some general sense sought to and succeeded in weaponizing/militarizing space. The Russians had a similar
program and succeeded roughly to an equivalent degree in this regard. Both countries sought to and succeeded by way of their space programs to
develop then state of the art space based surveillance/reconnaissance/terrestrial locating and tracking systems, ever improving systems which aided in
ICBM/SLBM tracking/targeting/performance and ever improving space shuttle and manned orbital lab type capacities. These programs were developed in
part under the guise of Apollo.

You were trashed, torn apart, burned alive basically on this subject when you brought it up before. The only thing you proved here too was that you
have a very, very small knowledge of ICBM/SLBM tracking/targeting. Restating something that you were completely wrong about will not make it anymore
true (except in your head of course).

Once again you have proven nothing, speculated a whole lot, and shown a complete lack of understanding in these areas, especially those that you
profess to be an "expert" in.

Again: bring proof to the table, if you want to be taken more seriously by anyone.

1) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Ken Mattingly was never genuinely at risk to acquire German measles just before the
flight of Apollo 13 as alleged by Apollo/NASA medical principals

Do you know for a fact that Ken Mattingly did not have rubella as a child?

2) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Alan Shepard's Meniere's Disease was never cured by way of a William House 1968/1969
shunt surgery

NASA never claimed that the shunt surgery cured his Menière's Syndrome.

3) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Deke Slayton's alleged paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was not cured by way of vitamin
therapy nor was it cured by way of no therapy whatsoever

NASA most certainly did not claim that Deke Slayton's atrial fibrillation was cured by vitamin therapy.

4) The undeniable fact that contrary to NASA's claims, Frank Borman was never really ill in cislunar space with viral gastroenteritis during
the course of Apollo 8's alleged trans lunar coast

This lie has been so definitively demolished I am surprised that you continue to bring it up.

Each of these claims are a deliberate and willful distortion of the truth. Why don't you find a girlfriend like a normal 18 year old?

(Note: Decisively is welcome to back up each of his above statements. He will not, because I am being "rude" to him. Making an accurate observation
is not rude, especially if the subject has devoted their life to falsehood and slander.)

I believe in a broad sense sputniksteve, you misunderstand the nature of this thread

Look out over the terrain here sputniksteve. This is the highly speculative world of the Skunk Works. Uncertainty is assumed.

This thread's charge is to first of all assume it to be the case that Apollo was fraudulent. A rather easy assumption to make given Frank Borman's
bout of bogus cislunar diarrhea. Translation; no assumption necessarily, it's a matter of fact, but if you'd rather assume than accept that fact, go
ahead for the sake of participating here.

Now, given that fact, or very reasonable assumption if you'd prefer, what were they really up to ? If Apollo was fraudulent in the sense that they
were not landing dudes on the moon, what were they using Apollo as a cover for ?

For example, it is a well known fact that Richard Nixon claimed it was a reasonable thing to cancel the Manned Orbital Lab(MOL) project because we had
two space lab projects going at the time, MOL and SKYLAB. As SKYLAB persisted/was continued, and as MOL/SKYLAB/APOLLO could reasonably be viewed as
connected, what might SKYLAB have been about ?

We are told that MOL was space based manned military reconnaissance that was cancelled in light of unmanned satellite reconnaissance evolving to the
point of being able to do the same thing if not more. But Nixon told us that in a sense MOL and SKYLAB were the same thing, and we are not so dumb as
to fall for the MOL was space based military reconnaissance line and was in a sense obsolete before it was even tried. First of all, the Russians
occupied their MOL, the ALMAZ, and they were as good more or less with satellites as we were/are, so if they had a use for the manned based platform
independent of satellite based reconnaissance, then so would we have, and presumably that is why we kept the MOL in its SKYLAB incarnation.

We therefore conclude there were reconnaissance tasks that were done in SKYLAB and Almaz that could not be carried out by by unmanned satellites. In
addition, there may have been other tasks assigned to the men in SKYLAB, perhaps having to do with helping to create our ICBM/SLBM celestial
navigation system.

SKYLAB was launched by a Saturn V. It was at least connected to Apollo by that much, but undoubtedly more. That simply has to be the case.

So sputniksteve, here in this thread, this highly speculative Skunk Works thread, we want to study SKYLAB and the Manned Orbital Lab, and the Almaz,
and so forth, and in this way we may learn indirectly how Apollo may have helped to bring these systems about, and we may learn Apollo in some way
covered for the nefarious military activities associated with these projects.

Ditto for Dyna-Soar, AKA the X-20, AKA the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle was/is no more no less than Dyna-Soar, well probably MORE, truth be told,
but you get the idea. It was sorta' the same thing, hypersonic, manned, bomber, reconn, glider. Apollo covered for its development, no question, but
what were the details ?

This thread is an invitation really to be creative. We all should be thinking about the possible, the edge of the possible, and Apollo's role in that
edge. In a way, this should be a fun thread for those adventuresome and familiar with the military hardware of the times.

One last point about this. I sometimes wonder about Charles Townes and his lasers and his connection with NASA. He claims to have been a sort of
unwilling, borderline, "OK I'll go along with it", military scientist. He claims he sort of semi-reluctantly cooperated with the military guys. But
is that really credible ? At first, and for a long time, all the money for laser research came through the military. The Lick Observatory
astronomers said the ONLY TIME they ever had all the money they needed/wanted for a project was when they worked with the military/NASA in building
the LRRR laser. Now THAT !!!! is a revealing statement. So was Townes up to some hanky panky of his own, working with NASA ? Could Apollo have been
a cover for military laser work ? I say VERY possibly.

The only way we will get at this stuff sputniksteve is to read very widely and be ultra-open minded/creative here.

Apollo as fraud is yesterday's news. We have a growing PERP LIST. To some degree, we know how they tried to fool us( LOST BIRD, phony lightning
strikes, bogus medical illnesses, yadda yadda). What we'd REALLY LIKE TO GET A FEEL FOR NOW IS WHAT EXACTLY WERE THEY DOING WHILE THEY WERE
PRETENDING TO LAND MEN ON THE MOON.

Of course some details may well still be national security sensitive, and that should be respected/honored. As I have said many times over the last
year plus I have been doing this, I am not an absolute pacifist. I am not looking to argue we lay down our weapons. That said, we need not pretend
to go to moon to defend ourselves.

Just out of curiosity when you reply back to my simple post with a rehash of all 15 of your threads condensed do you copy/paste or do you type it all
out every time? I have noticed that you tend to make a lot of your replies basically say the same thing over and over and it gives me a head ache to
think that you might have to retype it all every time. I hope for your sake you are taking some short cuts bro, otherwise carpel tunnel is in your
near future I'm afraid!

Also it does appear that you are mistaken about the difference between regular forum sections, the "Grey Area", and "Skunk works". Skunk works is
the least credible section available to us, short of the fiction/short story area.

"If a swimmer can remain on his rival's hip, he can be carried along in his surge………"

The great, Charles Sprawson.......

As true with swimming, so too with Apollo...........

I typed that all out. I am an EXTREMELY FAST TYPIST, LIGHTENING FAst, held a couple local records briefly, back in high school. Hence all the
mistakes too , LOL..... Should slow down. Would do better to go have as fast and make no mistakes, but typing FSAT is therapeutic for me, like
swimming.

Anyhoo, for the most part, I like to write things OVER. I believe I may hit on something new that way, and indeed I do hit on new angles, new
perspectives, new points .

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.